Indulge in the pleasure of thirst satisfaction -
The default position is that one unit of pleasure sometimes referred to as a Hedon is equivalent but opposite in value to one unit of pain sometimes referred to as a Dolor. Several Hedonistic Utilitarians have argued that reduction of pain should be seen as more important than increasing pleasure, sometimes for the Epicurean reason that pain seems worse for us than an equivalent amount of pleasure is good for us.
Imagine that a magical genie offered for you to play a game with him. The game consists of you flipping a fair coin. If the coin lands on heads, then you immediately feel a burst of very intense pleasure and if it lands on tails, then you immediately feel a burst of very intense pain.
Is it in your best interests to play the game? Another area of disagreement between some Hedonists is whether pleasure is entirely internal to a person or if it includes external elements.
Internalism about pleasure is the thesis that, whatever pleasure is, it is always and only inside a person. Externalism about pleasure, on the other hand, is the thesis that, pleasure is more than just a state of an individual that is, that a necessary component of pleasure lies outside of the individual.
Externalists about pleasure might, for example, describe pleasure as a function that mediates between our minds and the environment, such that every instance of pleasure has one or more integral environmental components.
The vast majority of historic and contemporary versions of Prudential Hedonism consider pleasure to be an internal mental state. Perhaps the least known disagreement about what aspects of pleasure make it valuable is the debate about whether we have to be conscious of pleasure for it to be valuable.
The standard position is that pleasure is a conscious mental state, or at least that any pleasure a person is not conscious of does not intrinsically improve their well-being. The most common definition of pleasure is that it is a sensation, something that we identify through our senses or that we feel.
Psychologists claim that we have at least ten senses, including the familiar, sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, but also, movement, balance, and several sub-senses of touch, including heat, cold, pressure, and pain.
New senses get added to the list when it is understood that some independent physical process underpins their functioning.
The most widely-used examples of pleasurable sensations are the pleasures of eating, drinking, listening to music, and having sex.
Use of these examples has done little to help Hedonism avoid its debauched reputation. It is also commonly recognised that our senses are physical processes that usually involve a mental component, such as the tickling feeling when someone blows gently on the back of your neck. If a sensation is something we identify through our sense organs, however, it is not entirely clear how to account for abstract pleasures.
This is because abstract pleasures, such as a feeling of accomplishment for a job well done, do not seem to be experienced through any of the senses in the standard lists.
Some Hedonists have attempted to resolve this problem by arguing for the existence of an independent pleasure sense and by defining sensation as something that we feel regardless of whether it has been mediated by sense organs.
Most Hedonists who describe pleasure as a sensation will be Quantitative Hedonists and will argue that the pleasure from the different senses is the same. Qualitative Hedonists, in comparison, can use the framework of the senses to help differentiate between qualities of pleasure.
For example, a Qualitative Hedonist might argue that pleasurable sensations from touch and movement are always lower quality than the others.
Hedonists have also defined pleasure as intrinsically valuable experience, that is to say any experiences that we find intrinsically valuable either are, or include, instances of pleasure. According to this definition, the reason that listening to music and eating a fine meal are both intrinsically pleasurable is because those experiences include an element of pleasure along with the other elements specific to each activity, such as the experience of the texture of the food and the melody of the music.
By itself, this definition enables Hedonists to make an argument that is close to perfectly circular. Defining pleasure as intrinsically valuable experience and well-being as all and only experiences that are intrinsically valuable allows a Hedonist to all but stipulate that Prudential Hedonism is the correct theory of well-being.
Where defining pleasure as intrinsically valuable experience is not circular is in its stipulation that only experiences matter for well-being. Some well-known objections to this idea are discussed below.
Another problem with defining pleasure as intrinsically valuable experience is that the definition does not tell us very much about what pleasure is or how it can be identified.
For example, knowing that pleasure is intrinsically valuable experience would not help someone to work out if a particular experience was intrinsically or just instrumentally valuable. Hedonists have attempted to respond to this problem by explaining how to find out whether an experience is intrinsically valuable.
One method is to ask yourself if you would like the experience to continue for its own sake rather than because of what it might lead to. Wanting an experience to continue for its own sake reveals that you find it to be intrinsically valuable. While still making a coherent theory of well-being, defining intrinsically valuable experiences as those you want to perpetuate makes the theory much less hedonistic.
The fact that what a person wants is the main criterion for something having intrinsic value, makes this kind of theory more in line with preference satisfaction theories of well-being. Another method of fleshing out the definition of pleasure as intrinsically valuable experience is to describe how intrinsically valuable experiences feel.
This method remains a hedonistic one, but seems to fall back into defining pleasure as a sensation. It has also been argued that what makes an experience intrinsically valuable is that you like or enjoy it for its own sake. Hedonists arguing for this definition of pleasure usually take pains to position their definition in between the realms of sensation and preference satisfaction.
They argue that since we can like or enjoy some experiences without concurrently wanting them or feeling any particular sensation, then liking is distinct from both sensation and preference satisfaction.
Merely defining pleasure as intrinsically valuable experience and intrinsically valuable experiences as those that we like or enjoy still lacks enough detail to be very useful for contemplating well-being.
A potential method for making this theory more useful would be to draw on the cognitive sciences to investigate if there is a specific neurological function for liking or enjoying. Cognitive science has not reached the point where anything definitive can be said about this, but a few neuroscientists have experimental evidence that liking and wanting at least in regards to food are neurologically distinct processes in rats and have argued that it should be the same for humans.
The same scientists have wondered if the same processes govern all of our liking and wanting, but this question remains unresolved. Most Hedonists who describe pleasure as intrinsically valuable experience believe that pleasure is internal and conscious.
Hedonists who define pleasure in this way may be either Quantitative or Qualitative Hedonists, depending on whether they think that quality is a relevant dimension of how intrinsically valuable we find certain experiences. One of the most recent developments in modern hedonism is the rise of defining pleasure as a pro-attitude — a positive psychological stance toward some object.
Positive psychological stances include approving of something, thinking it is good, and being pleased about it.
An example of a pro-attitude towards a sensation could be being pleased about the fact that an ice cream tastes so delicious. Fred Feldman, the leading proponent of Attitudinal Hedonism, argues that the sensation of pleasure only has instrumental value — it only brings about value if you also have a positive psychological stance toward that sensation.
In addition to his basic Intrinsic Attitudinal Hedonism, which is a form of Quantitative Hedonism, Feldman has also developed many variants that are types of Qualitative Hedonism. For example, Desert-Adjusted Intrinsic Attitudinal Hedonism, which reduces the intrinsic value a pro-attitude has for our well-being based on the quality of deservedness that is, on the extent to which the particular object deserves a pro-attitude or not.
For example, Desert-Adjusted Intrinsic Attitudinal Hedonism might stipulate that sensations of pleasure arising from adulterous behavior do not deserve approval, and so assign them no value.
Defining pleasure as a pro-attitude, while maintaining that all sensations of pleasure have no intrinsic value, makes Attitudinal Hedonism less obviously hedonistic as the versions that define pleasure as a sensation. Indeed, defining pleasure as a pro-attitude runs the risk of creating a preference satisfaction account of well-being because being pleased about something without feeling any pleasure seems hard to distinguish from having a preference for that thing.
The most common argument against Prudential Hedonism is that pleasure is not the only thing that intrinsically contributes to well-being. Living in reality, finding meaning in life, producing noteworthy achievements, building and maintaining friendships, achieving perfection in certain domains, and living in accordance with religious or moral laws are just some of the other things thought to intrinsically add value to our lives.
When presented with these apparently valuable aspects of life, Hedonists usually attempt to explain their apparent value in terms of pleasure. A Hedonist would argue, for example, that friendship is not valuable in and of itself, rather it is valuable to the extent that it brings us pleasure.
Furthermore, to answer why we might help a friend even when it harms us, a Hedonist will argue that the prospect of future pleasure from receiving reciprocal favors from our friend, rather than the value of friendship itself, should motivate us to help in this way.
Those who object to Prudential Hedonism on the grounds that pleasure is not the only source of intrinsic value use two main strategies. In the first strategy, objectors make arguments that some specific value cannot be reduced to pleasure.
In the second strategy, objectors cite very long lists of apparently intrinsically valuable aspects of life and then challenge hedonists with the prolonged and arduous task of trying to explain how the value of all of them can be explained solely by reference to pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
This second strategy gives good reason to be a pluralist about value because the odds seem to be against any monistic theory of value, such as Prudential Hedonism. The first strategy, however, has the ability to show that Prudential Hedonism is false, rather than being just unlikely to be the best theory of well-being.
This argument has proven to be so convincing that nearly every single book on ethics that discusses hedonism rejects it using only this argument or this one and one other. In the thought experiment, Nozick asks us to imagine that we have the choice of plugging in to a fantastic machine that flawlessly provides an amazing mix of experiences.
Importantly, this machine can provide these experiences in a way that, once plugged in to the machine, no one can tell that their experiences are not real. Disregarding considerations about responsibilities to others and the problems that would arise if everyone plugged in, would you plug in to the machine for life?
The vast majority of people reject the choice to live a much more pleasurable life in the machine, mostly because they agree with Nozick that living in reality seems to be important for our well-being.
Opinions differ on what exactly about living in reality is so much better for us than the additional pleasure of living in the experience machine, but the most common response is that a life that is not lived in reality is pointless or meaningless.
Most commonly, Hedonists argue that living an experience machine life would be better than living a real life and that most people are simply mistaken to not want to plug in.
Some go further and try to explain why so many people choose not to plug in. Such explanations often point out that the most obvious reasons for not wanting to plug in can be explained in terms of expected pleasure and avoidance of pain. For example, it might be argued that we expect to get pleasure from spending time with our real friends and family, but we do not expect to get as much pleasure from the fake friends or family we might have in the experience machine.
These kinds of attempts to refute the experience machine objection do little to persuade non-Hedonists that they have made the wrong choice.
Imagine that a credible source tells you that you are actually in an experience machine right now. You have no idea what reality would be like. Given the choice between having your memory of this conversation wiped and going to reality, what would be best for you to choose?
Empirical evidence on this choice shows that most people would choose to stay in the experience machine. The bias thought to be responsible for this difference is the status quo bias — an irrational preference for the familiar or for things to stay as they are.
That our actions have real consequences, that our friends are real, and that our experiences are genuine seem to matter for most of us regardless of considerations of pleasure. Unfortunately, we lack a trusted methodology for discerning if these things should matter to us.
Perhaps the best method for identifying intrinsically valuable aspects of lives is to compare lives that are equal in pleasure and all other important ways, except that one aspect of one of the lives is increased.
Using this methodology, however, seems certain to lead to an artificial pluralist conclusion about what has value. This is because any increase in a potentially valuable aspect of our lives will be viewed as a free bonus.
And, most people will choose the life with the free bonus just in case it has intrinsic value, not necessarily because they think it does have intrinsic value.
The main traditional line of criticism against Prudential Hedonism is that not all pleasure is valuable for well-being, or at least that some pleasures are less valuable than others because of non-amount-related factors.
Some versions of this criticism are much easier for Prudential Hedonists to deal with than others depending on where the allegedly disvaluable aspect of the pleasure resides. If the disvaluable aspect is experienced with the pleasure itself, then both Qualitative and Quantitative varieties of Prudential Hedonism have sufficient answers to these problems.
If, however, the disvaluable aspect of the pleasure is never experienced, then all types of Prudential Hedonism struggle to explain why the allegedly disvaluable aspect is irrelevant.
Examples of the easier criticisms to deal with are that Prudential Hedonism values, or at least overvalues, perverse and base pleasures. These kinds of criticisms tend to have had more sway in the past and doubtless encouraged Mill to develop his Qualitative Hedonism.
In response to the charge that Prudential Hedonism mistakenly values pleasure from sadistic torture, sating hunger, copulating, listening to opera, and philosophising all equally, Qualitative Hedonists can simply deny that it does.
Since pleasure from sadistic torture will normally be experienced as containing the quality of sadism just as the pleasure from listening to good opera is experienced as containing the quality of acoustic excellence , the Qualitative Hedonist can plausibly claim to be aware of the difference in quality and allocate less value to perverse or base pleasures accordingly.
Prudential Hedonists need not relinquish the Quantitative aspect of their theory in order to deal with these criticisms, however. Quantitative Hedonists, can simply point out that moral or cultural values are not necessarily relevant to well-being because the investigation of well-being aims to understand what the good life for the one living it is and what intrinsically makes their life go better for them.
A Quantitative Hedonist can simply respond that a sadist that gets sadistic pleasure from torturing someone does improve their own well-being assuming that the sadist never feels any negative emotions or gets into any other trouble as a result.
Similarly, a Quantitative Hedonist can argue that if someone genuinely gets a lot of pleasure from porcine company and wallowing in the mud, but finds opera thoroughly dull, then we have good reason to think that having to live in a pig sty would be better for her well-being than forcing her to listen to opera.
Much more problematic for both Quantitative and Qualitative Hedonists, however, are the more modern versions of the criticism that not all pleasure is valuable.
The modern versions of this criticism tend to use examples in which the disvaluable aspect of the pleasure is never experienced by the person whose well-being is being evaluated.
The best example of these modern criticisms is a thought experiment devised by Shelly Kagan. Kagan asks us to imagine the life of a very successful businessman who takes great pleasure in being respected by his colleagues, well-liked by his friends, and loved by his wife and children until the day he died.
Then Kagan asks us to compare this life with one of equal length and the same amount of pleasure experienced as coming from exactly the same sources , except that in each case the businessman is mistaken about how those around him really feel.
This second deceived businessman experiences just as much pleasure from the respect of his colleagues and the love of his family as the first businessman. The only difference is that the second businessman has many false beliefs. Given that the deceived businessman never knew of any of these deceptions and his experiences were never negatively impacted by the deceptions indirectly, which life do you think is better?
Nearly everyone thinks that the deceived businessman has a worse life. This is a problem for Prudential Hedonists because the pleasure is quantitatively equal in each life, so they should be equally good for the one living it.
Qualitative Hedonism does not seem to be able to avoid this criticism either because the falsity of the pleasures experienced by the deceived businessman is a dimension of the pleasure that he never becomes aware of. Theoretically, an externalist and qualitative version of Attitudinal Hedonism could include the falsity dimension of an instance of pleasure even if the falsity dimension never impacts the consciousness of the person.
However, the resulting definition of pleasure bears little resemblance to what we commonly understand pleasure to be and also seems to be ad hoc in its inclusion of the truth dimension but not others. A dedicated Prudential Hedonist of any variety can always stubbornly stick to the claim that the lives of the two businessmen are of equal value, but that will do little to convince the vast majority to take Prudential Hedonism more seriously.
Another major line of criticism used against Prudential Hedonists is that they have yet to come up with a meaningful definition of pleasure that unifies the seemingly disparate array of pleasures while remaining recognisable as pleasure. Some definitions lack sufficient detail to be informative about what pleasure actually is, or why it is valuable, and those that do offer enough detail to be meaningful are faced with two difficult tasks.
The first obstacle for a useful definition of pleasure for hedonism is to unify all of the diverse pleasures in a reasonable way.
Phenomenologically, the pleasure from reading a good book is very different to the pleasure from bungee jumping, and both of these pleasures are very different to the pleasure of having sex. This obstacle is unsurpassable for most versions of Quantitative Hedonism because it makes the value gained from different pleasures impossible to compare.
Not being able to compare different types of pleasure results in being unable to say if a life is better than another in most even vaguely realistic cases. Furthermore, not being able to compare lives means that Quantitative Hedonism could not be usefully used to guide behavior since it cannot instruct us on which life to aim for.
Attempts to resolve the problem of unifying the different pleasures while remaining within a framework of Quantitative Hedonism, usually involve pointing out something that is constant in all of the disparate pleasures and defining that particular thing as pleasure.
When pleasure is defined as a strict sensation, this strategy fails because introspection reveals that no such sensation exists. Pleasure defined as the experience of liking or as a pro-attitude does much better at unifying all of the diverse pleasures.
However, defining pleasure in these ways makes the task of filling in the details of the theory a fine balancing act. Liking or pro-attitudes must be described in such a way that they are not solely a sensation or best described as a preference satisfaction theory.
And they must perform this balancing act while still describing a scientifically plausible and conceptually coherent account of pleasure. Most attempts to define pleasure as liking or pro-attitudes seem to disagree with either the folk conception of what pleasure is or any of the plausible scientific conceptions of how pleasure functions.
Most varieties of Qualitative Hedonism do better at dealing with the problem of diverse pleasures because they can evaluate different pleasures according to their distinct qualities.
Qualitative Hedonists still need a coherent method for comparing the different pleasures with each other in order to be more than just an abstract theory of well-being, however.
And, it is difficult to construct such a methodology in a way that avoids counter examples, while still describing a scientifically plausible and conceptually coherent account of pleasure.
As mentioned, many of the potential adjustments to the main definitions of pleasure are useful for avoiding one or more of the many objections against Prudential Hedonism. The problem with this strategy is that the more adjustments that are made, the more apparent it becomes that the definition of pleasure is not recognisable as the pleasure that gave Hedonism its distinctive intuitive plausibility in the first place.
When an instance of pleasure is defined simply as when someone feels good, its intrinsic value for well-being is intuitively obvious. However, when the definition of pleasure is stretched, so as to more effectively argue that all valuable experiences are pleasurable, it becomes much less recognisable as the concept of pleasure we use in day-to-day life and its intrinsic value becomes much less intuitive.
The future of hedonism seems bleak. Hedonists have been creative in their definitions of pleasure so as to avoid these objections, but more often than not find themselves defending a theory that is not particularly hedonistic, realistic or both.
Perhaps the only hope that Hedonists of all types can have for the future is that advances in cognitive science will lead to a better understanding of how pleasure works in the brain and how biases affect our judgements about thought experiments. If our improved understanding in these areas confirms a particular theory about what pleasure is and also provides reasons to doubt some of the widespread judgements about the thought experiments that make the vast majority of philosophers reject hedonism, then hedonism might experience at least a partial revival.
The good news for Hedonists is that at least some emerging theories and results from cognitive science do appear to support some aspects of hedonism. Dan Weijers Email: danweijers gmail. com Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand.
Table of Contents Types of Hedonism Folk Hedonism Value Hedonism and Prudential Hedonism Motivational Hedonism Normative Hedonism Hedonistic Egoism Hedonistic Utilitarianism The Origins of Hedonism Cārvāka Aritippus and the Cyrenaics Epicurus The Oyster Example The Development of Hedonism Bentham Mill Moore Contemporary Varieties of Hedonism The Main Divisions Pleasure as Sensation Pleasure as Intrinsically Valuable Experience Pleasure as Pro-Attitude Contemporary Objections Pleasure is Not the Only Source of Intrinsic Value Some Pleasure is Not Valuable There is No Coherent and Unifying Definition of Pleasure The Future of Hedonism References and Further Reading Primary Sources Secondary and Mixed Sources 1.
Types of Hedonism a. Value Hedonism and Prudential Hedonism When philosophers discuss hedonism, they are most likely to be referring to hedonism about value, and especially the slightly more specific theory, hedonism about well-being. Normative Hedonism Value Hedonism, occasionally with assistance from Motivational Hedonism, has been used to argue for specific theories of right action theories that explain which actions are morally permissible or impermissible and why.
Hedonistic Egoism Hedonistic Egoism is a hedonistic version of egoism, the theory that we should, morally speaking, do whatever is most in our own interests. Hedonistic Utilitarianism Hedonistic Utilitarianism is the theory that the right action is the one that produces or is most likely to produce the greatest net happiness for all concerned.
The Origins of Hedonism a. Cārvāka Perhaps the earliest written record of hedonism comes from the Cārvāka, an Indian philosophical tradition based on the Barhaspatya sutras. Aritippus and the Cyrenaics The Cyrenaics , founded by Aristippus c.
Epicurus Epicurus c. The Oyster Example With the exception of a brief period discussed below, Hedonism has been generally unpopular ever since its ancient beginnings.
The Development of Hedonism a. Bentham Normative and Motivational Hedonism were both at their most popular during the heyday of Empiricism in the 18 th and 19 th Centuries. Contemporary Varieties of Hedonism a. The Main Divisions Several contemporary varieties of hedonism have been defended, although usually by just a handful of philosophers or less at any one time.
Pleasure as Sensation The most common definition of pleasure is that it is a sensation, something that we identify through our senses or that we feel. Pleasure as Intrinsically Valuable Experience Hedonists have also defined pleasure as intrinsically valuable experience, that is to say any experiences that we find intrinsically valuable either are, or include, instances of pleasure.
Pleasure as Pro-Attitude One of the most recent developments in modern hedonism is the rise of defining pleasure as a pro-attitude — a positive psychological stance toward some object. Contemporary Objections a. Pleasure is Not the Only Source of Intrinsic Value The most common argument against Prudential Hedonism is that pleasure is not the only thing that intrinsically contributes to well-being.
Some Pleasure is Not Valuable The main traditional line of criticism against Prudential Hedonism is that not all pleasure is valuable for well-being, or at least that some pleasures are less valuable than others because of non-amount-related factors.
There is No Coherent and Unifying Definition of Pleasure Another major line of criticism used against Prudential Hedonists is that they have yet to come up with a meaningful definition of pleasure that unifies the seemingly disparate array of pleasures while remaining recognisable as pleasure.
The Future of Hedonism The future of hedonism seems bleak. References and Further Reading a. Primary Sources Bentham, Jeremy An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , First printed in and first published in A corrected edition with extra footnotes and paragraphs at the end was published in Recent edition: Adamant Media Corporation, Blake, R.
Why Not Hedonism? A Protest, International Journal of Ethics , 37 1 : An excellent refutation of G. Crisp, Roger Reasons and the Good , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Discusses the importance of ultimate reasons and argues that the best of these do not use moral concepts. The volume also defends Prudential Hedonism, especially Chapter 4. Crisp, R. Hedonism Reconsidered, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , LXXIII 3 : Essentially the same as Chapter 4 from his Reasons and the Good.
De Brigard, F. Presents empirical evidence that the experience machine thought experiment is heavily affected by a psychological bias.
Feldman, Fred Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert: Essays in Moral Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Contains a mixture of topics relevant to hedonism, including modern and ancient theories and objections. There is a detailed section on adjusting pleasure to take deservedness into account Part III. Pleasure and the Good Life , Oxford: Clarendon Press. The best and most detailed account of Attitudinal Hedonism.
This volume also includes a very detailed account of how Prudential Hedonism should be defined. Kagan, Shelly Chapter 2: The Good, in his Normative Ethics , Oxford: Westview Press, pp.
See especially pp. Kawall, J. The Experience Machine and Mental State Theories of Well-being, The Journal of Value Inquiry , An excellent article about the strengths and weaknesses of the experience machine thought experiment as it is used against hedonism. If they just so happen to land in our lap then it is ok.
But there are two parts of Asceticism. The first is that we should not seek after any earthly pleasure and the second is that we should not allow ourselves to experience any earthly pleasures as either one could tempt us to sin and lead us away from God. Just because she takes the first part and leaves off the second does not make it any less asceticism.
That is what it is. Young and Restless would reject this principle of asceticism. These are the lusts of the flesh according to the Bible:.
Now do you see the human craving for apple pie or just the general desire for sex not illicit sex in this list the Apostle Paul just gave? It really is hard today to find a good balanced church. On the far left side we have those preachers who never say anything against any sin and they will have members in their church openly living together in fornication and they are ok with this.
Or they may even invite practicing homosexuals to join their church or head their church. On the far right side we have those who try and teach us that all human desire for earthly pleasure or earthly things is sinful.
These are the extremes we must fight against as Bible believing Christians. In no way does the Scripture teach that all human desires for earthly things or earthly pleasures are wrong. Now this is the part of asceticism that Young and Restless fully supports.
She gives this well-known passage from Colossians in support of her belief:. Another passage she did not give but I have seen others her camp use to try and support their false ascetic teachings is this one:.
If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. It is saying we are to set our minds, our thoughts on things above and not on things on the earth. If we take this passage by itself and are not looking at its context or how it is used throughout the Bible this would mean that we cannot think about our marriage, our children, our jobs, our car, our dog, our cat, our mom, our dad…you get the point.
Now even the ascetic would not like that explanation. The problem is the text does not give us such a definition. It is sinful earthly things — not all earthly things. Do you see anywhere in this list of that we should not set our minds on marriage, having children or eating apple pie because they are earthly things?
Now what about 1 John ? In the Gospel of John we are told:. So when we use discernment we know that God is commanding us not to love the sinful things of this world — not literally everything in their world including our spouses, children and apples.
And she is not alone. You will find ascetic Christian teachers on the far right teaching exactly what she has said. In fact I grew up hearing some preachers like this in Churches I attended. After all God is the only thing that lasts. All the things of this world will eventually fade away so why should we have any desire for such temporal things in and of themselves?
Paul alludes to this in his attack on asceticism that was creeping into the church while the Apostles still lived:.
Is it righteous, holy and ultimately glorifying to God when I crave a piece of apple pie? The answer is yes! And the reason is because I was designed to image God. God experiences pleasure and he design us to as well. When we live out our design we glorify God.
It is God who gave me taste buds and it God who gave me that craving for apple pie. It is God who sends dopamine rushing through my brain as I eat that pie and God who causes my tastes buds to react in pleasure.
All of this is by his hand and his design. Therefore when I exercise my desire for the pleasure of apple pie and I do so within the bounds of his law and realizing everything comes from him I do in fact bring glory to my creator.
In other words — we actually bring glory to God by seeking out earthly things and earthly pleasures like marriage, sex in marriage and having children in marriage as well as building beautiful things and seeking out wonderful foods.
When we do all this within the bounds of his law it honors and glorifies him. Again it sounds nice, it sounds pious to say we should find all our contentment in God. But the truth is we can find contentment in earthly things and earthly pleasures as long as we realize that God is the only thing at will ultimately satisfy our spiritual thirst.
Christ alluded to this:. Water or tea or even a piece of apple pie might bring us temporary contentment in the moment. It will content our physical desire for a time. But these things will never bring contentment to our spiritual thirst.
This is how people abuse Gods gifts when they look to them as their ultimate source of contentment and fulfillment and not God. But again there are two extremes we must avoid. The one is to look for all our contentment in earthly things like food, wine or sex even in marriage and the other is to say that God did not give us any of these things even for temporary contentment as we look to him for our ultimate spiritual contentment.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon. In the Ascetic view — we cannot have treasures on earth and treasure in heaven. We cannot serve God and also seek to make money or have possessions in this world. We must choose between a simple and uncomfortable life and having God or having material comforts and not having God.
Was Christ saying it was wrong to for a man to earn money or have nice things for himself or his family? Absolutely not. In fact God says this about riches, money and inheritances:. So what is Christ saying when he says we cannot serve two masters — money material things, earthly things, riches and God?
He is talking about where our faith is. We must trust in God — not in our riches or material possessions. These passages of Scripture tell us this:. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
So what is the common theme in the Bible about those who have riches and material things? The theme is that we are not trust in riches, we are not trust in our material things but our trust is always to be in God.
We cannot trust in riches and trust God. We must choose. Now will there be some times when we have to give up some material comforts and temporal pleasures in the service of God? Missionaries do this all the time. Even for those of us who are not missionaries we may give up our material possessions and comforts to help others and that is to be commended.
So while we should be willing to part with our material comforts if God calls us to in a certain situation it does not mean all Christians at all times not matter their situation may never seek after material comforts or temporal pleasures or should never have these things.
This is the false dichotomy that asceticism offers us. You see in a way Satan can use both materialism and asceticism to keep people away from God. We can be drawn away by our possessions and trust in them rather than trusting in God or we can allow asceticism to keep people away from the faith because they thing that salvation requires them to suppress the natural desires God gave to human beings.
Both keep people away from God and serve as stumbling blocks to a relationship with God. And this is the truth of the Scriptures as I have demonstrated throughout this article. God hates the sinful system of this world that came into being after Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. But he still loves his creation including the birds of the air, animals, reptiles, the mountains, the rivers and chief among his creations mankind.
He still loves the things he created as gifts for man like marriage, sex, children, food and other beautiful things in this world. When he calls on us to hate the world and the things in the world — he is calling on us to hate the sinful system in this world and not the beautiful things he created.
Can we love temporal earthly pleasures and earthly things and still love God? Can we seek the pleasure of having a spouse and children and a home together and still love God? Can a man store up an earthly treasure as an inheritance for his children and still love and serve God?
Can we love and savor the taste of apple pie and seek after it and still love God? The summary of all these questions would be the very question of this article:. To say that we cannot is to present a false dichotomy the Scriptures never present.
To say otherwise is to teach asceticism which is not the commandment of God but rather the commandments and teachings of men. This awesome thread BGR is why I rate you the best blogger in WordPress.
Also just for you and everybody else — I apologize for not getting as many posts out in the last few months. Lots of stuff going on with my day job and with my family life.
Nothing bad — just been pulled in many different directions. But my passion for this ministry has not waned in the least and I will continue to write what the Lord lays on my heart from the Bible and from conversations I have with others about these issues that affect our daily our lives as believers.
They want to tell themselves they are going the extra mile being extra Holy , but as they are not God, they are incapable of setting any rules in the first place. In a sense, when someone adds to the word of God, they are not only doing what the bible tells them not to Deut , but they are also trying to assume the role of God as if they are in a position to make the rules or law.
I agree totally with the interpretation that phrases in the Word about the flesh are not simply referring to the flesh which God created and declared good , but they are referring to the sinful nature of the flesh specifically. It is really all about idols.
If you love that apple pie more than God, you are making an idol out of it and for you that would be sin. For it to be sin for everyone, it must be weighed against scripture.
Romans 14 describes such a faith. I have faith in a good and loving God God is love, but He expects obedience and respect. He wants me to take pleasure and enjoy the body He blessed with me with within the rules He has given me to follow.
He never wants me to forget that it is all about what His hands have done to bless me — I am not to worship the pie, but the one who made the pie possible.
I am not to worship money, but I can worship the one who has blessed me with skills to work hard for money. Nothing can come before Him.
This one concept is so core. I agree with what you have said. It is not a contradiction. He loves the world he created, he hates the sinful world system that corrupts the world he created. He gave us all types of ways to experience pleasure as a gift to us.
But the sin cursed world takes his gifts and turns them into idols and they forget the one who gave them these gifts. Since this first world he created has been corrupted by sin eventually he will make a new heaven and new earth.
But right now we live in this first world and we do not yet live in that world to come. That means we live in a world that still has much of the beauty of what he created in Eden but also has much corruption from sin.
God has called us while we live in this world to discern the good from the bad and to exercise and experience his gifts within the bounds of his law while never turning them into idols — to always continue to be trust in him, fear him and have an attitude of gratitude toward him all things.
It refers to an arrangement or order not to physical existence or the universe. So when we are commanded in scripture to not be worldly we are told to arrange and order life according to the word and not according to pagan culture or our sinful desires.
This distinction is the incarnation. Jesus is God in the flesh, spirit and cells, transcendent and imminent. The anti-christs wanted to deny that Jesus came in the flesh because they wanted spirit ONLY.
This is the root of dualism that teaches do not eat, do not touch etc. it is pious and powerless. Ascetics and Gnostics are examples of this dualism. Jesus came in the flesh and ate, drank, laughed and cried. It is not eating or drinking that is sin, it is arranging our eating and drinking according to the priorities of the fallen world and not according to the Word of life.
This error has ensnared Christendom for millennia. Thank you BGR for being a voice of biblical reason in an age where the church that vacillates between material heathenism and dualistic piety.
Christians have to learn how to enjoy times of blessing without letting riches take our hearts away. We certainly should enjoy the good things that God has given us. But let us not set our hearts on these things. When I read this, I get the impression that the person has a genuine desire to please God and not sin.
However, this usually ends in religion or trying to please God by a series of rules or regulations as Paul notes in Galatians. Jesus said the whole law is summed up in loving God and your neighbor. Paul says producing the fruit of the Spirit is important in living our faith.
We are free to love others and love ourselves. Neither is sin. Our salvation in Christ gives us freedom to love others. We should enjoy them and bless others with it and gives thanks to God for them. By doing so, you will remember to put God first in your life with His help of course.
You never have to worry about enjoying life to much if you continue to do this and especially give back to others who are in need. Yes, if you take it too far you could get materialistic, etc.
If you take it too far to the right, you will become religious by seeking to please God through ways he never intends. God desires mercy and justice. He does not desire sacrifices.
Part Indulge in the pleasure of thirst satisfaction. This discourse delivered by datisfaction beginning on the Workout routines for cellulite reduction Moon ln Tawthalin with the introduction, which had taken satiwfaction of our time. We could deal only with the opening lines of the Sutta. Today, we will pick up the thread from there. And why shouldn't he indulge in these? Because the main purpose of one who has gone forth from the worldly life is to rid himself of such defilements as lust and anger. Jump to ratings and reviews. Want to pleasurf. Rate this satisfactionn. Sipping Saltwater: Free radicals and oxidative damage to proteins to Indugle lasting satisfaction in a world of thirst. Steve Hoppe. A unique angle on the problem of idolatry and how it affects Christians, particularly in our contemporary culture of numerous hidden idols. The uniqueness of this book comes in the metaphor of sipping saltwater.
How iin can Cayenne pepper for allergies be and still Stress relief through yoga to heaven?
Pleasire you ever yhirst it? You have. I unconsciously ask myself this question on a daily basis. But my actions speak louder satisfction Indulge in the pleasure of thirst satisfaction. How much plezsure I get away with?
How worldly can I be? Indulge in the pleasure of thirst satisfaction close can Indulgee get to the line satisfacrion divides sin Indulge in the pleasure of thirst satisfaction holiness and still be OK with God?
Tihrst very wrongheaded questions. But I ask on. It creeps in, bit by bit. We each Indylge something different that appeals to us rightnowatthismoment.
And it tuirst us where xatisfaction worldly appetite pleazure most voracious. Self-indulgence Angiogenesis and rheumatoid arthritis pretty much the opposite of self-denial, so does that make it unequivocally bad?
Is it Thorst to indulge a saitsfaction Or should ppleasure stay strictly satisfactipn the zones of moderation satisfsction privation like Pleawure Teresa? Cheating thlrst one pleasude question is a sin. Free radicals and oxidative damage to proteins harder part, though, is when Promoting good digestion habits innocent pleasures Free radicals and oxidative damage to proteins ones I listed before slide Ulcer prevention in the elderly sinful territory.
Datisfaction they can tue do slide. Pleasurr new car plwasure the bow? The box of cookies. Church…not my anchor. Cookies satisfaftion my anchor. Fast and thirs Forget it! After studying some scripture on this, I found satifaction of hearty satisfactiob against self-indulgence and Guarana for enhanced concentration bunch of praise for moderation Alma swtisfaction even privation.
You go, Mother Pleasurre Besides living Indulge in the pleasure of thirst satisfaction shiftless, satisfsction life and becoming a slave to my whims, are there Indulge in the pleasure of thirst satisfaction consequences to living a self-indulgent life? Here you go:.
As things get worse in the world, and thist Free radicals and oxidative damage to proteins becomes increasingly despised, I want thf be like Moses satisfactipn described in Hebrews When I Invulge my grip on Blood sugar crash and cardiovascular health pleasures, then my hands are free to accept the gift Regulate insulin response true and lasting satisfaction—a cup of Living Water that quenches every thirst.
Sister Satisfatcion Watson lives satksfaction the Diabetic retinopathy screening White Mountains of Arizona with husband, Brother Michael, and two miracle-born boys. View all posts. Thank you Sister for addressing many of our daily struggles in life.
It has become such the norm people including myself have to be on guard, what a slippery slope it is. Saatisfaction know the Lord wants us to enjoy jn life but is it a treat or a waist of time and money for Gods kingdom purposes? Life is so short. Beautiful article. have it to thyself before God.
Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. Blessed is the pleaskre who does not condemn himself by what he approves. Let the Holy Ghost guide us or else Ijdulge go back into bondage of having a law for everything.
Love this. Let the Holy Spirit guide you or else we go back into bondage with a law for everything again.
Such great insight. Thank you Sister Michelle for allowing God to use you to inspire others. God bless you for all you do. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Submit Comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Even though I know it's foolish, I do this from time to time. I'll walk into a dark room and feel around for some object that I know is there—no need to turn on the light for Read More. It's about the "Coming Soon Cafe.
We never share your email address with anyone for any reason, and we use it only to send you Gospel Blog emails. Just articles, not ads!
From finding a lost wedding ring to healing cancer on the spot, Jesus Christ has done it all, big and small. We encourage devotional-style or scripture-based articles in the ballpark of words.
We are open to any topic that glorifies God and unites the Church. Use the form below to send us your story.
Worried about your grammar? Back to Main Blog. A car with a big bow on it like in the commercials. The whole package of cookies gobbled in one sitting. Watching an entire season of my tyirst in a weekend. A whole day to do whatever I choose.
How tuirst that happen? At what point do they go from being fine to being sinful? I need my TV time to function. Read scripture? Oh, I never have time for that. Me-time is sacred. As in satisvaction prized and plentiful than family time, God time, or service time.
See what I mean? Innocent indulgences can be habit-forming to a fault. Self-Discipline Wins So Says Scripture After studying some scripture on this, I found plenty of hearty warnings against self-indulgence and a bunch of praise for moderation Alma and even privation.
My calendar is overflowing with me-time, and my energy cells are still blinking low. Here you go: Poverty and ruin: Prov. Next Friday: Denying My Desire to Be Boss to Gain a Leader Worth Following This article has undergone ministry review and approval.
Sister Michelle Watson. Brother Gary Thompson on September 3, at am. Great article once again Sister. GOD Bless You and your family.
Christina DiCenzo on September 3, at am. Kellie Speck on September 3, at am. Dianne Maddox on September 3, at pm. Submit a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Submit Comment Δ. Further Reading. Search for:. Satisfwction Miss a New Article.
Subscribe to Our Email List. Subscribe Now. Share Your Testimony on Miracle Monday We devote Miracle Monday to sharing miracle stories. Send My Testimony. The Gospel Blog Is Open for Submissions We encourage devotional-style or scripture-based articles in the ballpark of words.
Send My Indklge.
: Indulge in the pleasure of thirst satisfaction| How to think about pleasure | Psyche Guides | Sztisfaction, David, Pleasure in Ancient Greek PhilosophyCambridge: Cambridge University Press, The initial shock might be over. Love this. The pleasure Petrarch found in nature was in its immensity. Solomon, Robert C. |
| ‘We Need Pleasure to Survive’ | Epicurus gives a straightforward definition, influenced by Aristippus, a disciple of Socrates and founder of the Cyrenaic school of philosophy:. It is the starting point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we always come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of every good thing. Epicurus then claims that there are two self-imposed beliefs that do the most to make our lives unhappy or full of pain. They are first, the belief that we will be punished by the gods for our bad actions, and second, that death is something to be feared. Both of these beliefs produce fear and anxiety, and are completely unnecessary since they are based on fictions. While the gods do indeed exist, being perfect and eternal they do not directly concern themselves with human affairs. As such, we have no need to fear any punishment from them, nor do we need to spend time in laborious acts of pious worship. As for death, he points out that once sentient experience comes to an end there will be no sensation of pain. As such, the fear of death is completely groundless. Epicurus makes an important distinction between necessary and unnecessary desires. Necessary desires are those which are necessary to produce happiness, such as desiring to get rid of bodily pain, or desiring a state of inner tranquility. In order to get rid of this pain-pleasure-pain cycle, we need to cultivate a mindset in which there is no pain. Thus the aim is not the positive pursuit of pleasure, as it was for Aristippus. Epicurus notes further that we need wisdom to see which pleasures are really pleasurable, and which pains are necessary to produce pleasure. Some pleasures lead to greater pain, like imbibing copious amounts of alcohol, and so the wise person will shun them. On the other hand, certain pains, like sadness, can lead to an appreciation for life or compassion , which are highly pleasurable states. We should not therefore get rid of all negative emotions but only those that lead to unnecessary pains. This, by the way, is also one of the main conclusions that positive psychologist Ed Diener outlines in his latest research on the empirical basis of happiness. Another one of the main conclusions of recent research on happiness concerns the limited role that external conditions play in making one happy. Epicurus anticipates this with his claim that the greatest secret to happiness is to be as independent of external things as possible. Being content with the simple things in life ensures that you will never be disappointed. If you put your stock in unnecessary pleasures like costly luxuries and food, you will be 1 upset when you lose these things, 2 anxious to obtain them, and 3 continually pushed onwards towards greater luxuries and hence greater anxiety and disappointment. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, that produces a pleasant life. It is rather sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs that lead to the tumult of the soul. Based on this conception of happiness, it is the philosopher who is the happiest of all people, for he chooses the stable pleasures of knowledge over the temporary and volatile pleasures of the body. As he writes:. For man loses all semblance of mortality by living in the midst of immortal blessings. The problem is that more often than not, other people are a detriment to our happiness, by creating false competition for unnecessary pleasures. The solution to this is to remove oneself from ordinary society and to create a special commune where you interact only with those fellow like-minded pursuers of wisdom. In creating this vision, Epicurus no doubt influenced many Utopian thinkers from More to Marx who pin their hopes of happiness on a complete change in the social relations that form the fabric of who we are as human beings. About Us Our Story Our Vision Our News Our Team Our Board What Is Happiness? History of Happiness Introduction Abraham Maslow AI and Human Happiness al-Ghazali Aristotle Barbara Fredrickson Buddha Confucius Ed Diener Ellen Langer Epicurus John Locke Marie Jahoda Martin Seligman Mencius Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi Socrates Thomas Aquinas Thomas Jefferson Viktor Frankl William James Zhuangzi Resources Teaching Resources Happiness Quiz High School Happiness and Wellbeing Curriculum Happiness Quotes Depression Test: Am I Depressed? Epicurus — A Little Background Imagine if you will a lush garden full of fresh fruits and vegetables. What is common to all of the things that give you pleasure? The throughline between warm scarves and charity work and calling your grandmother; between the cool side of the pillow, the sad-happiness of nostalgia, the pop of a champagne bottle opening — what could it be other than that these are all, in their way, pleasing? So, the question is: if pleasure can be found in all these sundry ways, then what is it? And the most common answer is a tad ho-hum: stuff that feels good. Stuff that you like. There it is. Pleasure is what it is. This view of pleasure as unanalysable, it seems to me, makes the nature of pleasure even stranger given its ubiquity in our lives. Does that definition truly exhaust pleasure? When a significant number of philosophers, usually a loquacious bunch, throw up their hands and say that pleasure is too simple to describe, you know that the idea is an odd one. Perhaps the problem, as so often, lies with language. Pleasure occupies a prime position in a very crowded constellation. Pleasure might just be stretched too thin, operating as a kind of catch-all for all the fine gradations of positive experience. Plato thought so. Philosophers have long been wary of the pleasures of the body. Nowadays, many philosophers enjoy delicate concept carving, in which definitions are given so precisely that no counterexamples could be found. Ideas are divided and subdivided, and isms blossom and war with one another. But, traditionally, pleasure was rather bluntly cleaved into the two kinds of pleasures that I mentioned earlier: bodily pleasures and the pleasures of the mind. Bodily pleasures include easing into a warm bath, Arizona Iced Tea, and vigorous masturbation ; while among the pleasures of the mind are imagining retribution on your enemies and maybe your friends , feeling at one with nature, contemplating the higher truths and, naturally for philosophers, philosophy — which has often been called the highest pleasure. Why is it that the bodily pleasures have accrued such a poor reputation? Plato, as usual, had the first, very loud, say on the matter. His views shift over the course of the dialogues, but some general themes stand out. Bodily pleasure, he says, is often connected to pain and, because pain is a bad thing, so too is bodily pleasure. The relationship between pleasure and pain is intimate and tempestuous indeed. Bodily pleasures can also straightforwardly lead to pain, in the case of repetition or overindulgence. Finally, pleasure also usually comes from fulfilling some desire. But Plato considered desires themselves painful, because they identify what in our lives is lacking. This is the idea that bodily pleasure, and the seeking of bodily pleasure, produces false beliefs because, through bodily pleasure, the body comes to seem more important than the soul the false belief par excellence for Plato. It makes the soul corporeal, so that it necessarily believes the truth is what the body says it is. The pleasures of the mind, however, are free of most, if not all, of the blemishes that make bodily pleasures unworthy of philosophers. Plato thought that the greatest pleasure of the mind is the pleasure of learning — particularly of the virtues. But what exactly is pleasurable about the pleasures of the mind? Thinkers have long made the connection between the pleasures of the mind and the great things unseen, usually God. We should be wary, as with most distinctions, of drawing the line too thick. Next to the Christians, the Stoics were — and perhaps are , given the recent resurgence of interest — the great denigrators of bodily pleasure. Pathē passions were to be avoided, and pleasure was a significant contributor because it confuses clear thinking and creates untoward desires. The pleasures of the flesh were haughtily detested, a view that the Christians took up with verve. Their rivals in the ancient world were the Epicureans. This view applies both to bodily pleasures and to pleasures of the mind. Epicurus thought that the pleasures of the flesh consisted, for instance, in not being thirsty. What is the analogue to pleasures of the mind? He determined that the primary weight on our souls was the fear of death, which he sought to disabuse us of with an elegant little formula: when you are alive, death is nothing, and when you are dead, life is nothing. Once this is truly understood, then the weighty, wearying fear of death will be alleviated — and its absence is a great pleasure. Though it is a moderate and negative view of bodily pleasure, it amounts to a fairly robust defence. It is an approach to life that tends to cultivate the materiality of our lives, to allow us to take joy in the physical humanness of being human. A line can be drawn from Epicurus to Valla to Erasmus to Montaigne to Voltaire to Hume to Mill to Russell: a life-affirming, world-accepting tradition that urges us not to fear the pleasures of the flesh in moderation, of course. Nature provides pleasures: both high-minded ones and just getting away from it all. On another April day, this one in , Petrarch decided to go for a hike up Mont Ventoux, in Provence. This ascent has since taken on the aspect of myth, a moment that seemed to herald the arrival of humanism, because it was supposedly the first time that someone had climbed a mountain simply for the pleasure of doing so. He looks south towards Italy and is affected by memories of the ancient Romans. The pleasure Petrarch found in nature was in its immensity. He was lost in its vastness, overwhelmed by nature and his little place in it, hardly more than a speck of pollen in the wind. He is, at once, insignificant and all-powerful: an unsettling tension where you can sometimes find the subtle pleasures of the sublime. But you can also find in nature a very different kind of pleasure, almost entirely at variance with the sublime. Alone in nature, you can play as a hermit for a bit, which I think can allow you to recover a sense of your own uniqueness. In that way, perhaps, nature can help remind you of the indelible pleasure of being yourself. Schadenfreude is a bottomless reservoir, of course. Whether you drink from it with embarrassment or pride, it is still wonderfully pleasing to see your enemies fail — and most people have enough enemies, who do enough inexcusable stuff, that this particular spring of pleasure will never run dry. But what about its rather less provocative opposite: taking pleasure in the pleasure of others? And the Buddhist idea of muditā captures the phenomenon: it is the joy we feel when others are well. We are an essentially social species, and many philosophers have held that human nature cannot be fully realised without other people: being with one another is an indispensable part of being a human in the first place. Setting aside dictators and jerks , why is it pleasing to make others pleased? Philosophers, particularly in the 18th century , had a winningly simple answer: because it is good. Or, more precisely, because that is what goodness itself is — the increasing of pleasure in the world. Moral exhortations the world over have often boiled down to something like a common denominator: be not a nuisance to those you happen to be passing this life with, and, if you can, be a positive force for letting people get on with it. For instance, take these lines from a 4,year-old Babylonian advice book, amusing in their familiarity:. The question is why people should act well. What is radical about the philosophers who identified pleasure with goodness, then, is that they brought morality into the real world, there for it to be seen and tested, even quantified. Anthony Ashley Cooper, the third earl of Shaftesbury, was among the first to link the idea of the goodness of pleasure with the essentially social nature of humans. And while he argued that it was moral to try to increase the pleasure of others — primarily by means of material generosity — he also said that it felt good to give. Indeed, he held that the joy of increasing pleasure was itself the very highest pleasure. It is hard to say exactly what pleasure is. Though it is a common enough feature of existence, trying to nail down an exact definition is an elusive goal. That makes reflecting upon the nature of pleasure all the more important. That is, at least according to one popular definition that reaches back to Epicurus. Nature provides pleasure. People have often sought pleasure in nature, whether it be to feel the sublime immensity of the world or to get away from all those dickheads back home. |
| A Stoic Mystery: Do Stoics Experience Pleasure? | For instance, take these lines from a 4,year-old Babylonian advice book, amusing in their familiarity: Be pleasant to your enemy. However, this is only part of the story. Because they can and do slide. After six years of rigorous training, he had not gained any higher knowledge; he had not benefited in any way from the training and he realized that he had pursued the wrong path. And even outside of food and sex, men have desires to work and sometimes build businesses and other great things to benefit themselves and their families. |
Indulge in the pleasure of thirst satisfaction -
Epicurus makes an important distinction between necessary and unnecessary desires. Necessary desires are those which are necessary to produce happiness, such as desiring to get rid of bodily pain, or desiring a state of inner tranquility.
In order to get rid of this pain-pleasure-pain cycle, we need to cultivate a mindset in which there is no pain. Thus the aim is not the positive pursuit of pleasure, as it was for Aristippus. Epicurus notes further that we need wisdom to see which pleasures are really pleasurable, and which pains are necessary to produce pleasure.
Some pleasures lead to greater pain, like imbibing copious amounts of alcohol, and so the wise person will shun them. On the other hand, certain pains, like sadness, can lead to an appreciation for life or compassion , which are highly pleasurable states.
We should not therefore get rid of all negative emotions but only those that lead to unnecessary pains. This, by the way, is also one of the main conclusions that positive psychologist Ed Diener outlines in his latest research on the empirical basis of happiness. Another one of the main conclusions of recent research on happiness concerns the limited role that external conditions play in making one happy.
Epicurus anticipates this with his claim that the greatest secret to happiness is to be as independent of external things as possible. Being content with the simple things in life ensures that you will never be disappointed.
If you put your stock in unnecessary pleasures like costly luxuries and food, you will be 1 upset when you lose these things, 2 anxious to obtain them, and 3 continually pushed onwards towards greater luxuries and hence greater anxiety and disappointment.
By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, that produces a pleasant life.
It is rather sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs that lead to the tumult of the soul. Based on this conception of happiness, it is the philosopher who is the happiest of all people, for he chooses the stable pleasures of knowledge over the temporary and volatile pleasures of the body.
As he writes:. For man loses all semblance of mortality by living in the midst of immortal blessings. The problem is that more often than not, other people are a detriment to our happiness, by creating false competition for unnecessary pleasures. The solution to this is to remove oneself from ordinary society and to create a special commune where you interact only with those fellow like-minded pursuers of wisdom.
In creating this vision, Epicurus no doubt influenced many Utopian thinkers from More to Marx who pin their hopes of happiness on a complete change in the social relations that form the fabric of who we are as human beings.
No other sometimes smelly people, incredible flexibility, no tickets to purchase, and no fixed departure time, so there is no risk of missing the train. But when the car gets broken, hell, the world is ending. Just the idea of having to take public transport makes one tremble.
These two examples explain what Stoics mean when they say that pleasure is not essential for happiness. Rather it takes away our freedom by enslaving us to pleasurable activity.
Stoic practitioners learn to deal better with their pleasures, to truly experience happiness. Below you'll find exercises that help you strengthen your character against the negative side effects of pleasure. Ta-da, you are practicing the Stoic virtue of temperance.
The ultimate key is finding balance and moderating our behavior in order to maintain control over our pleasure. Of course, you can still enjoy some of your pleasures, but remember to watch it to avoid compromising your Stoic principles.
The further you are in your Stoic practice, the more likely it will become that you don't want too much pleasure anymore, as you have enough experience to know that living virtuously brings more than enough. Stoic Cosmopolitanism: Embrace Your Global Citizenship. Hierocles' Circles of Concern and The Surprising Connection to Whale Poo.
Imagine living a life where your peace of mind is unshakable. Stoic Buddy helps people shape their character and build their inner strength to deal with life's circumstances with reason and wisdom, living the good life they deserve. A weekly newsletter that helps you apply the wisdom of ancient Stoic philosophy to everyday life.
SIGN IN TRY FOR FREE. The Flourishing Stoic The weekly newsletter from Stoic Buddy Join a community of fellow Stoics willing to apply Stoic teachings and committed to personal flourishing.
Each week you'll get: Food for thought: One idea and questions to challenge you to help you grow. Exercises to practice the three Stoic disciplines desire, action, assent.
Your Email Address. To start flourishing, please check your inbox and confirm your email. A Stoic Mystery: Do Stoics Experience Pleasure? Uwe Scharrer. TL;DR As Stoics are humans, they certainly experience pleasure as long as one is not the Stoic sage. What is pleasure?
What is pleasure in Stoicism? Pleasure: A Dark Path to Self-Enslavement "It belongs to a wise man to resist pleasure; and to a fool to be enslaved by it. But he who has understanding considers his own acts to be his own good. Beware of too much pleasure; it makes you weak. Write down your pleasures: First, begin by brainstorming the pleasures that of often indulge in, that you love, or that simply often occur in your daily life.
Write them down. Having them visible in front of you makes it easier to remember because you have deliberately dealt with them. Write down an alternative: What else could you do instead of giving in to your pleasure?
True greatness is not the ability to obey your thirst, it is the capacity to resist your thirst and pursue a greater goal.
Judaism rejects embracing asceticism as a path to holiness. Yet, we collectively engage in abstinence from all types of physical pleasure for a full day to prove to ourselves and to God that we can. There is one temptation, one urge and desire that is not included in the abstinence of Yom Kippur, but which I would humbly submit we accept upon ourselves nevertheless.
For some, this form of self-denial may be even more difficult than fasting from food and drink. I am referring to speech and the powerful and potent force it represents in this world.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with food. Indeed, we need it to nourish ourselves and to sustain our existence. We are permitted and encouraged to indulge in tasty foods the other days of the year. However, on yom kippur, we achieve angelic status by elevating ourselves above the everyday mundane needs, wants and desires.
Similarly, not only is speech not inherently bad, it is good and serves as the bridge to allow us to communicate with others and Hashem.
Good Free radicals and oxidative damage to proteins church, it hhirst a joy and a privilege to be Nutrient-rich skincare ingredients you thisrt. My plexsure usually comes in the form of singing or at least Anti-aging facial products a guitar Indulbe I am praying that God would grant me the Free radicals and oxidative damage to proteins to put on display His glory from behind the pulpit this morning. Can this be the Christ? Imagine with me for a minute that you are sitting at your favorite restaurant, outside on the patio, catching up with an old friend. The interesting thing about being compelled is that for something to be compelling it typically pulls us away from what initially had our attention. The danger about being compelled towards something or someone is that our compulsions and needs often dictate what is compelling to us.
Ich sagte es nicht.
Eben dass wir ohne Ihre sehr gute Idee machen würden